Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Team Decision Making Questionnaire (TDMQ) demonstrated internal consistency, stability over time, and construct validity. Internal consistencies were excellent and Cronbach's Alphas (N = 102) for the 4 components ranged from 0.83 to 0.91. The internal consistency for the total instrument was 0.96. Test re-test reliability (N = 22) measured with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient was good. Transdisciplinary teamwork is widely practiced in health care. However, specific measures to evaluate transdisciplinary team decision-making are not described in the literature. The purpose of this study was to develop and psychometrically test a scale to measure the quality of transdisciplinary teamwork. A multi-method approach using focus groups, field testing, and quantitative instrument development procedures was used to develop and evaluate TDMQ. Principal component analysis (PCA) with a varimax rotation (N = 102) revealed a four-component solution resulting in a 19-item measure consisting of 4 subscales including Decision Making, Team Support, Learning, and Developing Quality Services. This study's findings support the use of the TDMQ for measuring the benefits of transdisciplinary teamwork. The four subscales of the measure provide insight into the nature of such benefits. To validate the TDMQ research is required with a greater number of health care professionals and in other clinical fields.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".